Plaintiff filed an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (#1) on November 5, 2012. The Magistrate Judge entered an Order (#2) denying the application (#1) without prejudice because Plaintiff submitted an incomplete application that omitted a description of her income. Plaintiff was granted leave to file a complete application by December 19, 2012.
On December 3, 2012, Plaintiff paid the filing fee of $350.00 and filed a complaint (#5) alleging race discrimination and other causes of action against ETT Gaming, Affinity Gaming, Kathy Stuward, and Marta Faliacara. On January 14, 2013, the Magistrate Judge ordered (#6) Plaintiff to file a Certificate of Interested Parties by January 28, 2013. That Order plainly explained the requirements of LR 7.1-1. Plaintiff failed to file any response to the Order (#6), and on February 7, 2013, the Magistrate Judge entered an Order to Show Cause (#7) requiring Plaintiff to show cause, in writing, why sanctions should not be imposed for Plaintiff's failure to file a Certificate of Interested Parties. The response to the Order to Show Cause (#7) was due by February 28, 2013. The Magistrate Judge also granted Plaintiff another opportunity to file the Certificate of Interested Parties by February 28, 2013, and forego having to respond to the Order to Show Cause (#7).
On February 19, 2013, Plaintiff filed a document entitled "Motion" (#8), in which Plaintiff states that "[a]bout the Affinity gaming, and ETT Gaming. I need make clear, it written' mistake, need make timing clear, about the Written Warning, it was happen at Affinity Gaming in charge the company, the date begin Jan/01/2011, to 02/28/2012, nothing to do about ETT Gaminf." (Errors in original.) Plaintiff then stated that she had another complaint about ETT, and attached a document describing a further complaint concerning her treatment at the hands of ETT Gaming. No Certificate of Interested Parties was filed, nor did the Motion (#8) address the Order to Show Cause (#7). The "Written Warning" Plaintiff is attempting to clarify involves a cause of action in her complaint (#5), and does not appear to refer to the Order to Show Cause (#7).
On March 7, 2013, the Magistrate Judge entered a Report and Recommendation (#9), recommending that the case be dismissed unless Plaintiff files the Certificate of Interested Parties no later than March 20, 2013. The Magistrate Judge notes that Plaintiff has failed to file the certificate or to request an extension of time in which to do so, or otherwise respond to the Order to Show Cause (#7). The Magistrate Judge further notes that Plaintiff's failure to comply with the multiple orders requiring Plaintiff to file a Certificate of Interested Parties has disrupted timely management of the docket, wasted judicial resources, and delayed litigation.
On March 11, 12, and 15, Plaintiff filed objections (##10-12) to the Report and Recommendation (#9), or responses to the Order to Show Cause (#7), stating that Plaintiff has already responded to the Order to Show Cause (#7) in filing the Motion (#8). Plaintiff again attached the Motion (#8), which does not address the issue of the missing Certificate of Interested Parties. As of this date, Plaintiff has not filed a Certificate of Interested Parties.
When a party timely objects to a report and recommendation, the Court is required to make a de novo determination of the portions of the report to which objection is made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Plaintiff's objections do not address the Report and Recommendation (#9), and Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Local Rules, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Magistrate Judge's orders. Plaintiff has been given multiple opportunities to correct this error. Moreover, the Report and Recommendation (#9) is appropriate under the circumstances of this case.
IT IS, THEREFORE, HEREBY ORDERED that the Report & Recommendation (#9) is APPROVED AND ADOPTED and the case is DISMISSED.
The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly.
United States District Judge
© 1992-2013 VersusLaw ...